Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealPartially AllowedOmnibus Notice of Motion application dated 16th April 2026· [2026] KECA 1215 (KLR)

Peter Ropiara Shieni v Mary Wanjiku Ropiara

Court of Appeal of Kenya
26 June 2026
640 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed a two-day late appeal filing because the delay was short, explained, and fair to both sides.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru by Murungi B. Kairaria, JA, delivered on 26th June 2026, on an omnibus notice of motion dated 16th April 2026 by Peter Ropiara Sheini. The applicant sought leave to file and serve a notice of appeal dated 11th April 2026 out of time, deeming of that notice as properly filed and served, a stay of execution of the judgment dated 27th March 2026 and resultant decree, and costs. The judge declined to consider the stay of execution prayer, holding it outside the remit of a single judge of the Court. The balance of the application was governed by Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022. Applying the settled criteria - length of delay, reason for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding and prejudice to the respondent - and relying on Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari and Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet, the court found the two-day delay not inordinate and the explanation (the judgment not being availed to the advocate promptly and the Easter holidays delaying instruction of counsel) plausible and reasonable, despite the respondent's opposition. Prayers 1 and 2 were granted, the notice of appeal was deemed properly filed within the extended period and properly served, and the costs of the application were ordered to abide the intended appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of two days in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate and satisfactorily explained

Holding

The delay was not inordinate and the explanation that the judgment was not availed to the advocate immediately after delivery and that Easter holidays delayed instructing counsel was plausible and reasonable

Reasoning

The court applied the established Rule 4 factors: length of delay, reason for delay, arguability of the appeal and absence of prejudice. A two-day delay was held not inordinate. Citing Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari and Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet, the judge reaffirmed that no minimum or maximum period of delay is prescribed and that a plausible and satisfactory explanation is the key to unlocking discretionary favour.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time under Rule 4 is an exercise of judicial discretion guided by the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding and prejudice to the respondent; the applicant must give a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the applicant to file and serve the notice of appeal dated 11th April 2026 out of time (prayer 1 granted)
  2. 2.The Notice of Appeal dated 11th April 2026 deemed to be properly filed within the extended period and properly served (prayer 2 granted)
  3. 3.Costs of the application shall abide the intended appeal
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Peter Ropiara Shieni v Mary Wanjiku Ropiara", Case Analysis (2026). Omnibus Notice of Motion application dated 16th April 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1215/eng@2026-06-26

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.